|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.249.84.228
"But whether the style of a contemporary composer is easy or hard to comprehend, it would be wise for the lay listener to keep the composer's objective well in mind."Copland 1949
I'd recommend the above CD to anyone interested in investigating Copland's own flirtation with the broader elements of Modernism. (Apart from the piano concerto.) Couldn't believe how much I enjoyed it.
His Inscape and Connotations incorporate dreaded Serialism but I find them riveting works as well.
Context and caveats understood.
Edits: 05/08/16Follow Ups:
how are we to discern what a composer's "objective" is. And further, why would a composer even want to convey an objective? Seems contrived, self-defeating, and more than capable of sucking all of the mystery out of music.
I too wonder if it is possible for us to ever know in explicit terms what a composer's true "objective" is. Even when the composer tells us what he or she *thinks* it is, he or she is likely to provide an incomplete answer - which is, basically, the WRONG answer. Half-truths are worse than lies, at least in some ways.The better composers won't tell you that much, they know better.
So I'm pretty sure that we've got to "read between the lines", so to speak, with our ears. Make a sort of educated guess regarding what the music is really about if you want to know much of anything about the music. That's just the way almost all of art is, IMO.
Edits: 05/10/16 05/10/16
there'd be NO need to compose music.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
How does one pen a musical journey yet hold the piece together? In other words, give themes and movements their own unique personalities yet make sure they still have Daddy's eyes?
Composers go about it in different ways, using different methods, some in the listener's "mother tongue", some not. Or some might dispense with process "x" altogether. This is where hell seems to break loose.
IMHO it helps to know *how* the composer tackles that issue and from what angle, hence "understanding the composer's objective."
Is the piece not tonal? OK, that means I'll have to listen to Babbit and Obrecht (why do people never bash the the more esoteric Polyphonists?) from a different POV and probably more than once. It's my job and sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.
Edits: 05/10/16 05/11/16
There is mental muscle involved in any type of music appreciation but, OTOH, I'm not so sure that it's my responsibility to try to defend or justify the music that meets my ears.
Or could it be that some people's ears are like silky moist vaginas, while other people's ears are like relatively dry assholes?
Seriously, what is the crux of the question here? And are there certain questions that should not be asked of anyone?
right: my ears, once overly moistened from hanging out on Wagner's Rainbow Bridge for too long, couldn't initially register the faint humidity of Debussy's Pelleas.
Speaking of fun, where's Newey?
Not worth it? ;-)
OTOH, it's still very worthwhile (for me anyway, and even as a rear-guard action), to bash the serialists. As their influece continues to ebb away, they'll probably be like the esoteric polyphonists in another century or two (i.e., not worth the effort to bash). Tchaikovsky? I think he'll still be going strong! After all, who can ever tire of his magnificent self-pity? ;-)
Never heard that term before, ever!
Wagner's objective was to write through - composed music (no applause allowed in the Church of Wagner). If you're a big fan of strophic Schubert songs or Mozart operas-- with all their stop and go traffic signals--your hopes and expectations are going to be dashed and it's not Wagner's fault for having different objectives (using a different template) than Mozart.A Serialist has a different objective as well. After absorbing or internalizing a thorny piece, an examination of the composer's objectives may very well break the code.
Edits: 05/10/16 05/10/16
Yes, I guess that's right, but "composer's objectives" sound too much like a hill to be taken. Writing music seems more like a journey into the unknown, involving discoveries rather than pursuing a known goal and deciding upon the best means of attaining it. But you're right about different ways of going about the task.
runs out?
I recall my first experience listening to Stravinsky's Rite, it was very early in my listening career, and having just come off Grieg and Tchaikovsky (their objectives being quite different than Stravinsky's!) I was sorely disappointed. Where was the grand, full orchestra reprise of the opening bassoon theme at the end of the Rite?? Complete with cascading scales and arpeggios??
Long story longer, it took awhile before I figured out that Stravinsky's objectives were different. Knowing that didn't spoil the mood but rather enhanced my appreciation of piece; it provided the key in.
To give one last example, Debussy's objective--broadly speaking --was to write music that sounds loosely constructed, yet carefully stitched together under the surface. I don't like the music any less for knowing that.
That analogy wouldn't work for me. I want the direct experience of art, unfiltered and unanalyzed. When I reflect on the most powerful experiences I have had with art,music in particular, the common denominator was the journey into the unknown.
objectives are different than composer y's.
It's fine not to like composer x on first or second hearing (definitely sound before Wiki, as I've told you know who many times.) But a bit of study has helped me better appreciate certain works, early music, and some 20th Century pieces.
Sometimes the objective is in the title, like Schoenberg's "Farben" (one of his pieces for orchestra) which means "to dye" or "colors". It's easy to complain that the piece doesn't go anywhere but then ah: colors!
Rite of Spring still sounds like an outgrowth of the Romantic era to me, and although I was similarly puzzled by it when I first heard it, I never had to guess what Stravinsky's objective might be in order to establish an emotional connection and attachment to the work. All it took was gaining some familiarity with it.
BTW, I'm not necessarily knocking the quest for finding a composer's objective as an aid to appreciating a particular work. Many roads lead to Rome.
O
it never came.
Brother, I hear you.
If he would have put more harps and soft strings in his music, he would have been a much better composer!
!
Very broad, I would hope. Because I hate boredom in music.
native tongue: it was easy to place them on the highest pedastal, and I have to battle that urge constantly whether listening to Binchois or Boulez.
Edits: 05/10/16
It's the composers job to construct a bridge (of sorts) that leads the listener from pedestal past to pedestal present, while possibly laying the groundwork for pedestal future.It's the reasonable thing to do. And I believe that the reasonable listener will respond accordingly.
Edits: 05/10/16
I loved Fantasia, especially the Stravinsky part, as a four-year old. My first assignment as a six-year old piano student was Bartok's Mikrokosmos. So I guess it depends on where you start.
But as you probably already know. . .
. . . I'd rather be listening to Glazunov! ;-)
BTW, I met Copland myself at a music critic's conference in Oakland - I think it was in the late 70's. Didn't get a chance to say much, aside from, "Hey! How's it goin'?" ;-)
Dude! Don't leave us hanging. How, in fact, WAS it goin'?
-Bob :-)
And what an honor to meet Copland.
I was introduced to Frederick Fennell in Vienna, Summer ''81.
Participated in a master class with Gaby Casadeseus.
Toured Russia, Poland and Sweden with Kenneth Gaburo and Steven Shick in '87-'88
and, thanks to my bro, shook hands with Buster Posey and Hunter Pence.
I actually played a concert with Frederick Fennell in the early 80s. A great guy, and a real character. Told funny stories at rehearsal, jumped around, and in general was the last word in energy and enthusiasm.
Was a mass band closing concert at a summer music festival in Vienna. Summer '81. Star Spangled Banner. I'm guessing 1000+ high school players.
.
Oh, wait...
Sorry, wrong board. :-(
As an amateur racer I was cycling along the back roads of Healdsburg (California) and suddenly Greg swooshed past. I struggled to keep up as long as I could, but he had hired a big fat guy on a motor scooter to use as his windbreak ("motorpacing") for some high rpm fitness training so within a few minutes he was out of reach.
Later on, I bumped into him again at Sawyer's News stand in Santa Rosa. We talked briefly, Greg seemed to be slightly discouraged by the state of competitive cycling at that point. He was nearing the end of his career and he was looking forward to a "retirement" consisting of golf and other restful activities.
Nevada City and his last amateur race before turning pro, which was a rainy 'Tour de San Francisco' in North Beach.
Not making that up, but I might be spelling it wrong!
I was standing at the finish line of the final stage of the 1975 Tour de France, when Bernard Thevenet beat Eddy Merckx, after a French fan leaned over and punched Merckx during a key mountain stage a few days earlier and he dropped from 1st place to 2nd.
Every time Merckx cycled (inches) past me on the circuit course on the Avenue des Champs-Élysées, the French fans would shout "Pou-Pou!", a taunting reference to frequent 2nd and 3rd place finisher Raymond Poulidor, who never won the Tour.
Funny story, thanks.However, I don't think it was ever established that Merckx was *intentionally* punched in the gut as he ascended one of the toughest climbs in the race.
The man responsible for "punching" Merckx, was later questioned about it. He claimed that he was only doing what hundreds of other fans were doing at the time (whirling his arms forward in an effort cheer the leader on), and when Merckx veered too close to the side of the road he (Merckx) inadvertently collided with the man's whirling hand.
Whatever the truth is, Merckx probably suffered some permanent damage as a result of having the wind knocked out of him while under exertion in the extreme altitude.
And whatever the truth, the French WERE known for harboring an ugly form of nationalism back then. For instance, they adored "eternal second" Poulidor because he seemed "typically" French (brunette, dark-eyed, poor working class roots, etc...), but disliked champion Anquetil because he was Norman French and had blue eyes/blonde hair.
So we can only imagine how the French felt about Belgian Eddy Merckx, routinely kicking their asses in the big tours. It's quite possible that he WAS intentionally assaulted on that day.
Edits: 05/10/16
I actually did meet Leopold Stokowski in the green room after a concert. He wasn't signing autographs, but he enjoyed smiling, shaking hands and saying hello to all the children.
When I played the cello in my elementary school orchestra, we toured Europe, where we played in the great halls of the continent and met with conductors such as Furtwangler and Mravinsky, and we even took a side trip out of Helsinki to meet with Sibelius! He was a bit hung over, but he seemed like a nice guy.
The whole experience was a lot of fun, except for when Beecham asked me, in kind of an ironic tone, to "keep in touch" with the rest of the orchestra!
"Sailing", "Ride Like the Wind", etc...
Knew him during the pbj days of his career too.
Now I hope this ends all of this oneupsmanship.
Now go.
KISS IT!!!
dh
My stories about Fennell and Stokowski, while not overly impressive, are 100 percent true. A better one, which I believe I've told here, is that my uncle, an amateur violinist who passed away early this year at the age of 92, may have been the last surviving musician to play under the baton of Frederick Stock, who conducted the Chicago Symphony from 1905 until his death in 1942. My uncle was playing in the University of Chicago student orchestra and Stock conducted them for a concert. It didn't go well, at least by Stock's standards, and he made them stop and start over at one point.
My father, who was then studying violin with Wolfe Wolfinsohn at the Longy School of Music in Boston, had the chance to turn pages for David Oistrakh's pianist at Symphony Hall during Oistrakh's famous first US tour. Being too chicken (as I would have been), he declined. But he did attend one of Oistrakh's concerts.
But my one-upmanship post is every bit as true as jdaniel's tale of meeting Nikisch at Macy's - and I even managed some gentle self-deprecation in my post (to add to its credibility)! ;-)
Broad shouldered babes from behind the iron curtain? I'm surprised.
I have a friend whose parents were close to Copland, Bernstein and their crowd. These were not high priests living on some isolated mountaintop who cared nothing what the plebians thought about their music. Copland as well as Bernstein wrote for Hollywood and Broadway. Copland conducted (though not as much as Bernstein), and both wanted people to buy tickets.
But they drew a sharp distinction between what they and their colleagues were doing and what Copland refers to as music used as a couch, or what might be called the concept of "easy listening", though not limited to the genre the music business later actually labeled easy listening.
"they drew a sharp distinction between what they and their colleagues were doing and what Copland refers to as music used as a couch, or what might be called the concept of "easy listening", though not limited to the genre the music business later actually labeled easy listening."
If only Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, and their followers had written as much "easy listening" music as Mozart! No, I don't mean the piano concertos, string quintets, and symphonies (although the symphonies numbered 24 and before might qualify!). I'm talking about the boatloads of divertimenti, cassations, and other easy listening from the 18th century! And who is Copland to pooh-pooh easy listening anyway? No, it's the INability of the serialists to write easy-listening works that reveals some of the true limitations and weaknesses of that whole school, i.e., its inability to encompass a wide range of the human experience. (And, no, if you're looking for easy listening in things like Schoenberg's cabaret songs, that's completely invalid - because that music was not written with serial techniques.)
Indeed, there were some passing comments that Copland made in the article that jdaniels linked to which, under anlysis, might be revealed to be nothing more than mere self-serving assertions, without any evidence at all. For instance, take this assertion:
[The composer] expresses these thoughts (musical thoughts, which are not to be confused with literary ones) in the musical language of his own time. The resultant work of art should speak to the men and women of the artist's own time with a directness and immediacy of communicative power that no previous art expression can give.
Well, that certainly avoids the issue, doesn't it! So Schoenberg's serialism is the music of that time? If a work of art "from the artist's own time" speaks with such "directness and immediacy of communicative power that no previous art expression can give", then I guess someone forgot to tell the VAST majority of the concert-going audience stretching from the time that Copland wrote the article (1949) until the present day.
The serialists had their 15 minutes of fame - now, aside from the niche of a niche of enthusiasts, it's time to put these composers and their synthetic, slide-rule notions of music into the dust bin of history.
Trash Modern Music ( it's not ALL Serial) and talkup your ( Under 40 only please)
Babes.
I don't get it, is that all there is?
There is so much great music, why must you pigeon-hole things?
If you don't like something, move on.
Your constant trashing of certain Music is pointless.
Babes get old, like everyone else.
Yuja at 80, I wish I'd live long enough to see how she handles it...
Probably specialize in early Schoenberg Piano Pieces.
I hope so.
But that's a bum rap to say I trash modern music in general. In actual fact, I'm GLAD modern music has moved away from the serialism of the followers of the Second Vienna School! Really, I'm a happy camper in this respect!
And, speaking of respect, I respect Yuja for, among other things, her artistic integrity. I think it's well known by now how she was offered "incentives" to learn, perform and record the Schoenberg Piano Concerto, and she flat out refused to do it. Brava! (And that doesn't mean the SHE's against all modern music either!)
"Babes get old, like everyone else."
Certainly they (and we) do. But what you neglect to mention is that the assembly line keeps turning out more new babe musicians each month - it's one of the things which keeps the world of classical music living and vibrant! ;-)
"Your constant trashing of certain Music is pointless."
Really? Is it really constant? I'm merely observing how serial music is losing some of its niche hold over the repertoire it once had. Well, OK, I do plead guilty to calling it "ugly"! But again, is that something I'm constantly doing? Maybe I should take a long hard look at my posts. Yes! And what do I find? Contributions to discussions about:And this is just within the last couple of months, and only on this forum! Hmm. . . so maybe the "constant trashing" charge IS a bum rap! ;-)
- Ansermet/OSR
- Ravel's Rapsodie espagnole
- The evlolution of song
- Salonen Interview in the NYT
- Quality of Epic vs. Columbia labels
- Stravinsky album with Suzuki on BIS
- kitch29's La Traviata reminiscence
- Bruckner symphonies
- Ravel orchestral works
- Love and Death (the movie)
- Bizet Symphony No. 1
- Saint-Saens Organ Symphony
- String players in an orchestra
- Taylor Swift (OK. you got me on that one!)
- Detroit Symphony on YouTube
- Zardoz (The movie)
- Paray/Detroit Saint-Saens new remastering with Plangent process
There's a mistake you make over and over again. Copland didn't pooh-pooh anyone, he was a modest and respectful man. And you can be sure that when he conducted a concert of his own music, he wanted people to buy tickets and show up, which they did. He was not a charismatic public figure, but he did write some very readable books to help his cause. And he is probably the most popular American classical music composer ever.
His protege Leonard Bernstein was a very charismatic public figure and went even further, not only writing very readable books, but starring on radio and TV, doing his famous Young Peoples' Concerts, and conducting to packed houses all over the world with programs that included music by the composers discussed by Copland, Copland himself, and of course Bernstein himself. You can't accuse either of them of pooh-poohing their audience.
And what about their work for Hollywood and Broadway? Bernstein had a huge hit that changed the Broadway musical forever in West Side Story (which was also a big success as a movie). Though Copland never had such a big show biz hit, versions of his music for the Irwin Shaw play Quiet City and the movie version of Thornton Wilder's Our Town have lived on as classical repertoire standards. Of course, Copland's Appalachian Spring, Rodeo and Billy the Kid were big ballet hits, as was Bernstein's Fancy Free.
Both Copland and Bernstein were influenced by the Second Viennese School, as well as by Stravinsky and many other so-called modernists. And their influence lives on. As for Glazunov, well, I wouldn't put him in a dustbin, but he is further in the past and part of a much older tradition.
I'm always on the warpath regarding the serialists, who represented part of the modernism Copland was defending in the article. You keep referring to Copland and Bernstein in terms of their own music, little of which is serialist - although I concede that a serialist influence is present, perhaps, in a tiny portion of their works.
Hi Chris - I must interject two points here. You of course are free to dislike serialism, as many other musicians do. However, let's agree to at least keep things factual and not get out of control - I must correct two things you said:
a) - to suggest that they couldn't have written "easy listening" music if they had wanted to is absurd. We are speaking of world class composers here, masters of their craft, and all three famous teachers of that craft, and not just of their own styles. They of course did not want to write "easy listening", and Copland is quite articulate about some of the reasons why in the article. And parenthetically, "Verklaerte Nacht" is quite a favorite of the "easy listening" crowd, though it was not intended as such by the composer.
b) - of course serialism was music of it's time, as again Copland talks quite well about. To say otherwise is again absurd. Much of Berg's music in particular is unimaginable without the context of WWI.
And perhaps I wasn't clear enough about your first point. Sure, the Second Vienna School composers could have written easy listening music, but my point is that these composers' serial techniques themselves would not allow for the composition of "easy listening" music. It's basically a defect of that style of composition. There might be some disagreement as to whether "Verklarte Nacht" represents "easy listening" music (my wife can't stand it!), but let's concede the point and say that it IS somehow representative of "easy listening". But the fact remains that that work is written in a tonal style, not a serial style! And I'll assert again that music written with 12-tone techniques is simply incapable of the kind of expression we hear in true "easy listening" works, such as a Mozart divertimento or a Johann Strauss waltz.
And, since I've got a head of steam going, I might as well get to your second point: it is NOT absurd to claim that 12-tone music was NOT the music of its time, when tonal music also existed at that same time. Sure, I know that there were 12-tone "true believers" (such as Rene Leibowitz) who claimed exactly that (i.e., that serial music was the ONLY legitimate music of its time and the ONLY legitimate path forward), but history has proven them wrong. And BTW, I say that it's absurd to imply that the horrors of WWI can only be expressed through serialism. Lots of composers wrote music which evokes the horrors of WWI, and most of them didn't need serialism to do it.
I see these guys made the obvious points for me.... c'mon Chris, you don't need to resort to misconstruing my statements...
rbolaw's point about film music is a particularly good one. A great many people listen to very dissonant music in films and don't bat an eye at it, even enjoying it later while listening to the album of the soundtrack.
"A great many people listen to very dissonant music in films and don't bat an eye at it, even enjoying it later while listening to the album of the soundtrack."
I agree with that statement, but if you replaced the word, "dissonant", with the word, "serial", could you then provide any actual examples of such music that people actually enjoy listening to?
I've enjoyed some movies with soundtracks which I wouldn't take seriously. For instance, 2013's "Under the Skin". (Plot: Scarlett Johansson drives around the streets of Glasgow in a van. Well, that's most of it anyway.) The score to this movie is an example of what you might call musique concrete, and, although I did like the movie, I have no desire to hear this score again. I'll be interested to see what examples of serial movie music that you think listeners might be interested in apart from their functional use in the movie.
You can't be serious. ;-)
I only have 100 questions regarding this.Exactly what defines "easy listening? Popularity? Whistling melodies after attending the 18th revival of Oklahoma? Using harmonic concepts that are hundreds of years old? Lack of dissonance defines "easy listening", or is dissonance ok as long as its not derived from a 12 tone concept? Serialism is horrific but atonal is ok? "Intellectual" concepts employed in composition are ok as long as it ain't 12 tone serialism? Mirror harmony/lines is fine but all 12 tone music bites a hot one?
Are all of Beethoven's quartets "easy listening" because they're tonal? How about Bartok's quartets? Or can those guys be excused for writing "hard listening" pieces because they'd already written music more palatable for the masses? Varese sucks due to lack of "easy listening" pieces? Where's Ligetti fit in? Walk around the house whistling melodies by Takemitsu? Guess his stuff sucks. Schnittke's ok because he showed he could write Bach-like sections?
I don't care for most 12 tone pieces I've heard, but I do enjoy some Webern, Berg and Schoenberg pieces that if not completely serial sure as hell were heavily influenced by the concept. There are also a helluva lot of tonal pieces that I find either boring as hell or worse, including some that you may love.
I don't judge music by popularity, simplicity/complexity, tonality/melodic content or lack thereof. My ears listen to *one piece at a time*, and I enjoy or dislike *individual* pieces. I may like one serial piece very much and never wanna hear another particular serial piece again. I can be bored stiff by the trite tonal harmony and lackluster orchestration of many pieces one could describe as "easy listening", and yet love Vaughn Williams' Fantasia On Greensleeves.
Ya know, only a truly tiny percentage of the world's population digs jazz. An even smaller percentage of that tiny slice enjoy MY music. Jeez, I can only dream of being as popular as Schoenberg :-)
BTW -- Learsfool did NOT say serialism was THE music of its time, he simply said it was music of its time. What else was it, music NOT of its time? He did NOT say "....the horrors of WWI can *only* be expressed through serialism." He said "Much of Berg's music in particular is unimaginable without the context of WWI."
Edits: 05/10/16 05/10/16
By "easy listening" I mean music that appeals to the lighter side of human nature - in line with the examples I provided, such as Mozart Divertimenti or Johann Strauss Waltzes. There are certainly some lighter moments in the Beethoven Quartets - Bartok Quartets, not so much. (But there are certainly examples in some of Bartok's other music of his ability to express this type of sentiment. In any case, Bartok was a more eclectic composer and was never enslaved to the overweening Schoenberg's artificial concepts.) The way I'm using the term, "easy listening" doesn't have anything to do with popularity. So don't feel bad if you're not as popular as Schoenberg. ;-)
I contend that serial music is incapable of expressing the lighter side of human nature. But that's only one of many sides that serialism is incapable of expressing. How about tenderness? (And don't try to dredge up the Berg Violin Concerto as a possible example - after all, it's contaminated with that Bach Chorale, and that's a no-no in serialism!)
"I don't judge music by popularity, simplicity/complexity, tonality/melodic content or lack thereof. My ears listen to *one piece at a time*, and I enjoy or dislike *individual* pieces. I may like one serial piece very much and never wanna hear another particular serial piece again. I can be bored stiff by the trite tonal harmony and lackluster orchestration of many pieces one could describe as "easy listening", and yet love Vaughn Williams' Fantasia On Greensleeves."
Hey - me too! And in fact, I DO listen to the occasional serial composition. (How did I end up with four recordings of the Boulez Second Sonata?) That doesn't change the fact that certain compositional processes/practices are inherently less capable of expressing the wide range of human experience and emotion than others are. For me, serialism was one of these "less capable" movements which had its brief moment in the sun (due to a number of artificial factors) and which is now on its way toward a more deserved level of obscurity. And, BTW, your rhetorical questions in the previous paragraph (were they intended to be sarcastic? sorry if I'm not picking up on the tone) are quite understandable to me, as your frustration overcomes you while you observe serialism continue its slow but sure evanescence over the next few generations. ;-)
First -- No, I wasn't being sarcastic. Just asking you to define terms, which your new post does.
I basically agree with you that when we think about 12 tone composition it doesn't conjure up sweet melodies and "pleasant" consonant harmony and feelings of tenderness. But in a way wasn't that the point? The idea was to come up with something leading away from the harmonic concepts Schoenberg felt had essentially been wrung dry. Regarding that I think he succeeded.
Hey, I'm not a "defender" of 12 tone composing. I would not choose to write a piece which was totally serial. In fact, so far (excepting assignments when I was in school) I've never employed the 12 tone concept in anything I've written. But I might in the future, and I do think its another valuable tool in a composer's toolbox, as is atonality and everything else under the sun.
Anything you hear so much of on TV, in movies, in the supermarket, at the dentist and when you're put on hold on the telephone that you barely realize it's there. It is or can be classical, jazz, Stravinsky, Sinatra, Beatles, Taylor Swift, atonal, minimalist, or anything else.
The main flaw in Chris's argument is that you can't put music into little pigeonholes and expect it to stay there forever.
I suppose one might include an element of superficiality in the definition (dentist office music, on-hold music), but superficiality itself is not the main factor (at least not in the way I'm trying to use the term). I certainly don't mean muzak when I refer to "easy listening", and I've already provided examples of musical works which I DID have in mind in connection with the term.
"The main flaw in Chris's argument is that you can't put music into little pigeonholes and expect it to stay there forever."
Sure - except for the fact that I'm not trying to put music into pigeonholes and expecting it to stay there forever. After all, I'm the one arguing that serialism is losing its hold on the musical public, so obviously I'm not expecting it to stay at its current (already reduced) level of importance.
Yes, serial music is a subset of atonal music, larger or smaller depending on how broadly or narrowly you define it. It was a famous early attempt to devise a rigorous system of melody and harmony using the equal tempered 12-tones (or intervals) but without the traditional keys and scales. So no major, minor, diminished or augmented scales. Also no modal, whole tone, pentatonic, hexatonic, or even chromatic.I view the abandonment of keys and tonal centers as by far the most important innovation of serial music, far more than the particular system used in its place. You say serialism in particular is the problem, yet that particular system allowed Schoenberg to adhere very faithfully and conservatively to many aspects of traditional 19th century classical music other than the admittedly fundamental one of key. Later, atonalists wandered much further afield.
"I contend that serial music is incapable of expressing the lighter side of human nature." That's what's nuts in your otherwise reasonable comments (though many of your comments merely reflect tastes that are vastly different than mine). Maybe Schoenberg, Webern and Berg weren't too interested in expressing the lighter side of human nature in their music. Schoenberg especially was apparently a sourpuss who got no closer to humor than jeering sarcasm. But making such absolute pronouncements is a dangerous game. The precise methods of serialism did not become universal. Even Schoenberg did not invariably use them. But its influence reached composers who did write light music.Leonard Rosenman was an Oscar-winning film and TV composer and a composition student of Schoenberg, Sessions and Dallapicola. Yes, not everything he did was serial music in a strict sense, or even atonal. But some of it was, or at least significantly influenced by it. Sure, this material is often used in contexts other than comedy. But it is often used in lighter genres, such as science fiction, The Twilight Zone being a famous example. That show had more than a slight streak of sly humor. And no Schoenberg, no Rosenman. No Rosenman or Jerry Goldsmith, another important movie and TV composer influenced by the second Viennese school, no Twilight Zone, or at least not the same distinctive Twilight Zone music.
Edits: 05/11/16 05/11/16 05/11/16 05/11/16
No Schoenberg, no Rosenman (or Jerry Goldsmith). Is that what you're arguing? Really? Let's see if I can re-construct the argument:Do I have it right? I won't say this argument is nuts, but. . . a syllogism it is not, especially since I daresay that most folks would not agree with at least a couple of the premises! ;-)
- Rosenman studied with Schoenberg (and Sessions and Dallapicola)
- Rosenman wrote some serial music
- Rosenman also wrote some tonal music
- Rosenman wrote some music influenced by atonality
- Rosenman composed science fiction music (a claimed "lighter" genre)
- The Twilight Zone is an example of this science-fiction genre
- Some episodes of the Twilight Zone were humorous
- Rosenman (Jerry Goldsmith too!) is unthinkable without Schoenberg
- Therefore, the Twilight Zone music would not be the same without Schoenberg
- (implied?) And 12-tone / serial music can evoke humor and/or lighter, more carefree states
BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but I just checked, and could find only one episode of the Twilight Zone that used Rosenman's music. Are there more? And that particular episode of the Twilight Zone ("And when the Sky was Opened" - my wife and I know all of the episodes tolerably well) didn't seem to me particularly light or humorous, but of course I could always be missing the finer points of interpretation. ;-)
All of the musical relationships I describe in my last post occurred to me entirely by listening, before I had any idea who and what was responsible for the things I was hearing. I'm not one of those people who claims there is a relationship between A and B and then searches for examples to prove it. In fact I'm too lazy to be especially good at that, and The Twilight Zone may not be the best example of what I'm talking about, just a very early and classic example, and a personal favorite.
Instead, I hear relationships and later (maybe years later) do some research to try to figure out why that relationship is there. I knew by listening that Schoenberg remained a devoted disciple of 19th century classical and romantic music even while he partly or fully abandoned the concept of key by listening to his music. Later I learned serialism was an invention that helped him do that.
I knew by listening that some others, not everyone, followed Schoenberg's lead in abandoning key, and especially after 1950, began to move away from other fundamental Western musical concepts. Later I learned that some of these had adopted but also greatly expanded and changed Schoenberg's ideas about serialism, and others had moved in different directions entirely.
And I knew by listening that popular culture had begun to absorb the ideas of Schoenberg and his successors by the late 50s and 60s. I later learned, and wasn't surprised, that some key figures behind this openly acknowledged they were influenced by Schoenberg and his successors, or were actual students of them. I don't mean to overstate this influence, it's just one of many, but I hear it.
By making serialism your bête noire, you simultaneously overstate and understate its significance. It's just one aspect of the decreasing emphasis on key and unambiguous tonal centers that we see throughout the 20th century. That trend began well before the 20th century. You could argue that adoption of the equal tempered scale, with its imperfect intervals, was an equally important step away from the concept of key and towards tonal ambiguity.
Schoenberg's serialism was significant as a formal system to assist in an ongoing trend away from the concept of key, much like the cubism of Bracque and Picasso assisted in moving away from earlier systems in the visual arts. Of course serialism and cubism had their limitations, but they were flexible and could be used in conjunction with the earlier systems, so they served their purpose. Schoenberg and especially Picasso, who lived and worked much longer, both moved away from their famous systems later in their careers.
But these systems had their impact. While all Western music is not strictly atonal, key simply does not rule the roost the way it did before serialism. And while all Western art is not strictly abstract, realism does not rule the roost the way it did before cubism. And for a host of reasons, that is unlikely to change. So stop wringing your hands over it already.
Finally, I really meant that Leonard Rosenman and Jerry Goldsmith are examples of hugely successful and influential composers of popular/light entertainment music both of whom were significantly influenced by the second Viennese school (yes, they had other influences too). Exactly what their contributions were to The Twilight Zone in particular, I do not know. You tend to interpret things very literally and narrowly, but in questions like artistic styles or influences, I don't think that generally works well.
Edits: 05/12/16
Nevertheless, I do want to comment on one statement: "By making serialism your bête noire, you simultaneously overstate and understate its significance." As I stated before, I'm a happy camper these days, as serialism and its influence recede further and further into the past. I also disagree with your contention that there has been a "decreasing emphasis on key and unambiguous tonal centers that we see throughout the 20th century". As I see it, this "decreasing emphasis" was more like a temporary dip, and now tonality is back in most of the minimalist writing - at least what I've heard - these days. Maybe there are other trends I'm less aware of, but for sure I'm not hearing stuff today that sounds like post-Webern serialism - or at least not so much! ;-)With regard to realism in art, I just have to shrug and say that, as a complete amateur in this field, I think that realism has not really been a goal of artists since the early 19th century. But, just as with serialism not being the only (or even the best) answer as to how music needed to develop in the early 20th century, so too with cubism: you don't have to dump the baby with the bathwater! You can have an artist such as, say, Raoul Dufy, whose style is hardly realistic, but whose work is nevertheless very identifiable and personal and is still compelling to a large public. IOW, the way forward isn't necessarily cubism, just as the way forward in music wasn't the dead-end of serialism. In any case, there are enough remnants of realism in cubism to make the analogy kind of weak. In fact, I'm not sure there really is a good painting analogy with serialism in music. I'm tempted to say someone like Jackson Pollock, but that's not really a good one either, since abstract expressionism lacks the systematic theoretical basis of serialism. (If anything, it seems more like atonal pre-serialism.) Or perhaps Pollock's work is more like aleatoric music. Or perhaps these art analogies are too much of a stretch to be useful. ;-)
Raoul Dufy, Regatta at Cowes, (1934)EDIT: Of course, there's one sure-fire painting/music analogy. That would be Thomas Kinkade, the Lawrence Welk of painting! ;-)
Edits: 05/12/16
The only thing I will add to this conversation is to comment that the current trend back towards neb-romanticism, although it did start towards the very end of the 20th century, is really more a current, 21st century happening - especially the sheer numbers of composers writing more tonal music again is much greater right now even than in the 90s.
One slightly strange speculative thought - it could be argued that minimalism is a form, or at least an outgrowth, of serialism - it certainly employs many of the same basic compositional principles and processes, though towards a different end.
I suppose that's where we really disagree: Movements like serialism and cubism, like all movements, do appear and then eventually fade away, but for me their impact is long term. Serialism was a notable step in a long term trend in decreasing importance of keys and tonal centers. Cubism was a notable step in a long term trend away from the importance of accurate or even recognizable depictions of specific objects recognizable from everyday life and towards abstraction. There is still music where key is very important, in fact it still is in most music. There is still art that is not abstract, maybe most art. But the era, from the Renaissance until the late 19th century, where certain traditional keys and scales reigned supreme in all Western music, and Western art had to accurately depict directly recognizable scenes from life, is over.
I love Dufy's work, btw.
Edits: 05/12/16
Something we can probably both agree on, since we're making parallels between music and art: Thomas Kinkade, the Lawrence Welk of painting.
And I have to admit that, if this were music, it would be tonal! ;-)
Soon to be released on the Cantaloupe Music label (no joke!):
Of course 12-tone music was A music of its time, not THE music of its time. There is always all sorts of music happening simultaneously in any era. And your comment that such music could never be "easy listening" is easily refuted by listening to TV show and movie soundtracks since the early 1960s. While that material may seldom have been written with a strict 12-tone technique, and may owe more to Edgard Varese, say, than to the second Viennese school, there are strong atonal and other modernist elements (for example, in use of percussion) in much of it.
Mr. Newey made an interesting and revealing comment in this context (sadly lost in the typical billow of his invective) when he referred to this material as "sound effects" rather than music, I suppose his way of dismissing it from the conversation. To him, music is Wagner, Bruckner and Brahms. To me, music is sound, organized to fulfill an abstract communicative purpose (not a concrete, practical purpose like a door bell).
Edits: 05/10/16
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: